Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39558508›Full record

ReviewClinical and translational science2024

Use cases of registry-based randomized controlled trials-A review of the registries' contributions and constraints.

Nadine Kubesch, Sneha Gaitonde, Uarda Petriti, Elisabeth Bakker, Swati Basu, Laura Ellen Birks, Elodie Aubrun, Sieta T de Vries, Rahel Schneider

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nadine KubeschCognizant Technology Solutions, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4929-3815
Sneha GaitondeNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-7028-7559
Uarda PetritiCognizant Technology Solutions, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0005-1933-2720
Elisabeth BakkerDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3359-9588
Swati BasuNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-2739-7917
Laura Ellen BirksNovartis Farmacéutica, S.A., Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7024-9563
Elodie AubrunNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1181-7265
Sieta T de VriesDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6090-2434
Rahel SchneiderNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2996-1409

Funding

European Union's Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Actions 101095479Novartis Pharma AG
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) can combine the advantages of registries with those of randomization. This review aimed to expand the current knowledge on RRCT utilization and implementation by providing a comprehensive overview of RRCT use cases. A targeted literature search was conducted through July 2023 to identify articles on RRCTs. Information regarding the RRCT characteristics, their utilization, and the registries' contributions and the constraints faced was extracted. Descriptive statistics were used. We identified 102 RRCTs in 110 publications. RRCTs were mostly performed for the assessment of medical devices or surgical/clinical procedures (n = 45), followed by drugs (n = 30). More than half of the RRCTs were conducted in the Nordic countries (n = 58) and the most used registry types were health service registries/administrative health data (n = 63), followed by disease registries (n = 46). Approximately half of the RRCTs (n = 53) utilized additional data sources aside from registry data. The contribution of a registry to the RRCT was mostly for data collection and study follow-up (n = 90-92), followed by patient recruitment (n = 56-61), and randomization (n = 28-38), with varying levels of transparency in reporting. We collated author-reported constraints related to the used registries into four overarching themes, that is, data availability and completeness, data quality, representativeness, and registry infrastructure and accessibility. This review shows that RRCTs are already used in different domains and geographic regions. Guidelines on structured and transparent reporting of RRCT methods and the optimal use are, however, needed to inform decision-making by health authorities and to reach their full potential.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesData CollectionHumansPatient SelectionResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID39558508
PMCPMC11573736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.